Won’t someone think of the vindictive ex-husbands?
Republicans have made headlines this year by demanding that people collecting unemployment benefits and public assistance be subject to drug testing. Now Iowa Republican state senator Mark Chelgren (Ottumwa) proposed Thursday that people who receive child support payments should also be drug tested if the person paying the support requests it, according to a report at Think Progress.
Chelgren submitted the measure as an amendment to a budget bill currently before the Iowa state senate. He claims the idea for the proposal came from an unidentified constituent who was concerned that his ex wife was using child support money to buy drugs.
[...] The Des Moines Register‘s “Iowa Politics” blog reports that the proposal was met by hoots of derision and open laughter by some Democrats. Sen. Jack Hatch (D-Des Moines) decried the measure as anti-woman and warned that it could be easily abused in acrimonious divorces by “vindictive spouses.”
Yes, exactly. Not that there’s ever been an acrimonious divorce or a vindictive ex-husband.
image: (AP Photo/NOAA)
It was only the second time in U.S. history that the Storm Prediction Center issued a high-risk warning more than 24 hours in advance, said Russ Schneider, director of the center, which is part of the National Weather Service. The first time was in April 2006, when nearly 100 tornadoes tore across the southeastern U.S., killing a dozen people and damaging more than 1,000 homes in Tennessee.
This weekend’s outbreak could be a “high-end, life threatening event,” the center said.
[...] The worst weather is expected to develop late Saturday afternoon between Oklahoma City and Salina, Kan., but other areas also could see severe storms with baseball-sized hail and winds of up to 70 mph, forecasters said. The warning issued Friday covers parts of Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas.
————————————-WHAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY STANDS FOR TODAY
Victoria Jackson: Only Communists And Fascists Believe In Climate Change – “This is the opposite of capitalism. It is the opposite of free enterprise and what made America the greatest nation in the world. This bill would be supported by the occupiers, Valerie Jarett, Van Jones, Obama, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Communists, Fascists, Socialists, whatever you want to call it, it’s the government taking over. It’s the government picking the winners and losers. Even though it looks pretty on the outside it’s the way our country is being destroyed right now.” – Victoria Jackson, speaking in opposition to a proposed alternative energy bill in Florida.
Rep. Virginia Foxx says ‘I Have Very Little Tolerance’ for people with student loans: Foxx (R-NC) took on a unique enemy during a radio interview yesterday: people with student loans. Though many politicians sympathize with those who are saddled with exorbitant student debt, Foxx, who chairs the House subcommittee on higher education, had a different take. Appearing on G. Gordon Liddy’s radio show, the North Carolina congresswoman recounted her own experience paying for college, where she worked her way through and graduated after seven years. Foxx then pointed to her own experience as justification for why she has “very little tolerance for people who tell me that they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt.” “There’s no reason for that,” she concluded… [ThinkProgress]
Mitt Romney plays to NRA interests in bid to win over conservative base – “In his second term, [Obama] would be unrestrained by the terms of re-election,” Romney said. “Who will stand up for the rights of hunters and sportsmen, and those who act to protect their families? President Obama has not. I will.” [...] “Obama has spent his entire political career engaged in a stealthy assault on your right to keep and bear arms. [If he wins] re-election to the White House, [he] will be immune from elections and free to misuse his ever-increasing power,” LaPierre said. Other key figures in the NRA have gone even further in their assaults on Obama. Ted Nugent, the ageing rocker who sits on the NRA board, called the president an “anti-American monster in the White House” in comments promoted on the NRA website. The increasingly hysterical tone of the organisation’s pronouncements is only to be expected in an election year, observers of the NRA say. “For the guys running the NRA, every election has to be Armageddon. This year, it’s ‘Obama is one election away from repealing the second amendment and stealing your guns’ – even though he’s done nothing but expand gun rights,” said Mark Glaze, director of the bipartisan coalition of more than 650 US mayors, Mayors Against Illegal Guns. [image:jessesublett]
Mystery donor gives $10 million to Crossroads GPS group to run ads against Obama and Democrats – The huge contributions, which make the donors among the top political givers in recent history, offer new evidence of the altered world of campaign finance: After the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, spending by interest groups has risen dramatically. The landmark ruling allowed corporations, unions and nonprofit groups such as Crossroads GPS to spend money directly on electoral politics. Crossroads GPS and its sister group, American Crossroads, hope to spend up to $300 million in the 2012 election cycle, promoting conservative ideas and helping elect Republicans up and down the ballot.
———————————————————–——PRESIDENT OBAMA / DEMOCRATS
The Buffett Rule is not raising a tax, it’s closing a loophole. It’s a quirk of the tax code that certain millionaires who enjoy private-equity riches pay a lower tax rate than middle-class families, and approving the Buffett Rule would not only mean establishing a degree of fairness, it would also mean scrapping this loophole. The point is not lost on President Obama, who made this observation on Wednesday: “I’d just point out that the Buffett Rule is something that will get us moving in the right direction towards fairness, towards economic growth. It will help us close our deficit and it’s a lot more specific than anything that the other side has proposed so far.” [emphasis added] In other words, where Paul Ryan is vague and evasive, Obama is being direct and specific. The president is identifying actual loopholes he wants to see closed (Buffett Rule, corporate-jet loophole, tax subsidies for oil companies), which would total tens of billions of dollars in the coming decade. Meanwhile Republican leaders talk about loopholes, but choose not to back this talk up with anything substantive. [Maddow Blog]
Obama likely paid higher tax rate than Romney in 2011 – Obama also pays a slightly lower rate than his own secretary, the White House said. “The tax code should not (be) written in a way that allows for the wealthiest Americans to pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-class Americans,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said. The Democratic-controlled Senate plans a Monday vote on the Buffett rule, one day before the U.S. tax-filing deadline. Americans favor the rule by 60 percent to 37 percent, according to a Gallup poll released on Friday. [...] A Romney spokeswoman called the tax debate an attempt by Obama to distract attention from the slow pace of job creation on his watch. Romney himself said the Buffett rule and other tax increases proposed by the White House were an “assault on economic freedom.”
WSJ: President Obama paid $162,000 in federal income taxes on $845,000 of income in 2011 — an effective tax tate of 19%. Compare that to Mitt Romney, who, wonder of wonders and miracle of miracles, only paid an effective tax rate of 14% on income of $3 million. And you wonder why Republicans hate the Buffett Rule. [via]